That entire conversation and this post is a product of party line preaching. We are all people and since money makes no difference on this forum, all opinions are valid for debate. This is the nature of democracy.

I respect all the people in the conversation you posted, including yourself. I don't always agree, but rarely do I voice my disagreement with those I consider to be unintelligent or simply disruptive. A lesson learned the hard way.

Your disagreement with the right is no secret. Beat a dead horse if you wish. I would spend more time touting your preferences than dislikes. One cannot derive a solution from a complaint. That's all I have on the mater.

If you answered no to both of those questions, than this thread has a negative net effect as the only result is to make you look dogmatic. I also find it hard to see how this type of poking will glean new insight, that you haven't already gained in a year of debating.

Since OWS was really started by anarchists, aren't the progressives, independents, and other accepted groups the real coopters? Most of them don't support the same goals the anarchists do. I'm surprised they even put up with us.

I'm an anarchist of heavily Marxist leaning, but will gladly accept support from almost anyone that has the same basic goals: real equality and democracy. I do not, however, appeciate all the partisans; some have even accused me of being a RepeliCON, because I do not support their party or Obama.

They fail to realize, many of us, who might have hoped Obama would deliver on at least some of his promises, have been sorely disappointed. The police state has grown; the war machine has grown; income and political equality has widened. Should we celebrate all those major victories?

No, no change of heart on my part. You forgot to tell me that you told another poster here to "fuck" off....or was it "fuck you." I cant f*ing remember. You really have to do something about that anger.

lol, i forgive you. just for the record, there is nobody that i view as more vile than bush, and cheney. i know though that does not fit well into your belief that promoting dems on HERE, this defiant movement.... is a good thing. anyone who does not want to see this struggle polluted with party politics is a repulicon, right??

Nope. Anyone who attacks dems serves repubs. Anyone who attacks repubs serves dems. That ain't my rule! that is how it works when you live in a duopoly.

I will challenge any and all unfair, inaccurate attacks on the party that IS fighting for progress (dems) against the republican/conservatives whose policies created all our problems. Because there is an election in 90 days.

And I meant from millions killed to thousands. not hundreds of thousands.

It is better to grow the movement. inclusion & toleration. The fear of being lead to the dustbin of history (quoting reagan? hmmm?) Is unfounded. The civil right movement, workers rights/union, womens rights movements, did just fine.

And would have gotten no where without working with Dems. If they or any progressive movement has been diminished then you should look to the right wing efforts against them

You are aware of the right wing effort against EVERY progressive movement throughout history right? And you do know that the right wing has mounted a massive concerted effort against OWS right?

I mean I don't have to tell you these facts right. Would you be surprised to hear that the right wing does not want OWS to work with the dems?

Isn't that enough of a signal that we should be working with all like minded groups to push the existing system (dems would be easier) to lay the ground work for our new system of govt.

Thats all. Create a new system! Yes I agree! Do not abandone the existing corrupt system to the right wing 1$ plutocrat puppets.

Lots of insults and inaccurate suggestions of my intentions. Nothing on my challenge of the issues you claim "the parties are the same" on.

Your silence is deafening. Instead you spew "little minds"? "promoted dissention" Nope. With who? You've suggest I haven't been on the street. I can't prove it. I don't have to. I know I was there. My daughter, my freinds. You don't wanna believe it 'cause you wanna put me in a box. I will not submit. "you claim I "twisted" huh? "erroneously predisposed"? Huh? huh? "beautiful person" Me? Never said it. Never would. "misrepresented"? LMFAO I do do represent anyone or the movement. So How can I MIS represent.? Please at least try to make sense.

Many unfounded accusations! Writing falsehoods don't make them true! It just reflects your inability to discuss the issues YOU brought up in a civil way. It only reflects your desire to deflect from then facts.

What about your claim that the parties are same on college, retirement, and food, shelter?

"salutation of peace....disingenious"? I want peace. I am not your enemy. YOU are attacking ME (as always). I continue to plead with you and all who attack people on this site to stop. "We must treat each other as if we will be working together for years to come" J Stein.

I am a good judge of character. We have had many exchanges in which you used your sullied bag of tricks on me, and I have witnessed you doing the same to others on here. Your 'character', unlike most others on here that disagree with me out of conscience, is lacking.

So another insult? "my character .... is lacking"? Please. I've only been civil. YOU attack ME. YOU'VE tried to bully ME. YOU don't like MY opinion, or choice of tactics. I urge respectful debate. You judge and seek to silence or banish.

No you have not been civil at all to me, or a number of commenters on here, so let's not pretend otherwise.

Just because, you may not have used profanity does not absolve you from my, and other commenter's accurate criticism, in your near-constant purposeful misrepresentation of what they are saying.

You have purosely misrepresented what they were saying in the hopes of adding credence to your argument. I did notice amusingly how you 'bit off a little more than you could chew' with shadz, who to his credit kept his cool, unlike i would have.

Then in my "dust bin of history" quote, you insidiously tried to link me with Reagan. Then you play the 'victim' when you get is dished back at you. lol

I credit my honesty to my up-bringing, my sense of community to the many years i lived in Vermont, where we had one of the only Congressmen worth his weight in gold....my ability to look at the big picture by having traveled throughout the world extensively, and having extended family on three other continents....and my ability to deal with phony people like you to my Jersey roots.

Undoubtedly, you will now do your best to link me with Christie.....and finish it off with your customary Peace", and NOW that you know, "Solidarity." lol

College: expanded Pell grants, took student loans from banks, created program to give colleges that keep costs down more fed aid, created program to assure colleges educate their athletes, crated a program to forgive student debt if graduates work in needy areas. Repubs are against all these actions.

Retirement: Dem support Social Security, medicare, Repubs have plans to cut, privatize, block grant these great progressive programs.

Food, roof: Dems have created a few programs to keep homeowners in their homes and to keep poor fed w/ food stamps. Repubs are against

No Dems arevastly better on all the important progressive issues we need. Including the 1st item: Money out of politics!

When you suggest otherwise you serve the republican 1%'rs who want voters to believe dems are the same as repubs to minimize the dem vote.

Anarchists can stay out of anything they want. You don;t seem to advocate anything except keeping OWS supporters from voting for dems or expressing that opinion. Certainly that seems to be your main focus.

I never claimed to. Do you. In addition to to judging whose views are pure enough for the revered anarchist founders, and determining who "doesn't belong on this site" are you now gonna claim that YOU know how to run a revolution? LMFAO.

So you are the Grand High Inquisitor & now the Consylea as well?
Wow you are so important. But you still can't respond to my challenge on your ridiculous claim that the parties are the same on college, retirement, food, shelter?

And I can follow the lead on the creation of a new system.

I will not abandon the voting booth to the right wing. If the plan is "lets get all the progressives to not vote" that is a non starter.

I ain't doin any such thing. Nor am I tryin to. Just because it passes your word hole don't make it true. You know that right.? This movement is too big, and I am too small to have the affect your suggest.

I mean honestly to claim that "I am the problem" is a serious red flag. It is outrageous. It puts your mental state into question. You need to slow down. by tolerant, accepting, try to remember the progressive liberal concepts of love.

We are in this together. Even if we don't agree with every tactic.

Every movement has an evolution. Hopefully we will achieve as much as what the other movements (which have gone to Trotskies dust bin) have achieved. We should be that lucky.

Yes, most of us on here came from a progressive background, who like me voted for Obama, and as you might remember, i even attended his inauguration. He has been a huge disappointment for most of the people here, most of all perhaps, for me. I am thoroughly disgusted with Obama, and like most people here who voted for him, feel duped. Does that translate into me being a repub supporter? In your 'either your for us, or again' us' little mind it does, but not in most people's 'working' minds.

For you to imply and interput that because of our backgrounds, that there is wide-spread support for your efforts in making this a non-effective partisan movement is very disingenuous, and even laughable, but i now know this is typical of you.

I'll give you this: You are a master at twisting, and mis-representing people, and trying to create divisions in this movement.. Unfortunately, that is not a compliment, but rather something that I find much more insidious in your three month campaign to defang this movement by making it a political one.

The road to our success does not lead through dem-ville. That is a detour that leads to a dead-end....that is if we want a sea change, anyway.

I disagree. This has to remain a defiant revolution. You can link our actions, or inactions here to consequences that 'might' be detrimental to our cause in the short term, but in the bigger picture they are far more beneficial. We have to remain the movement that is pushing for radical change.

I have never suggested to people not to vote. I will probably vote myself, and no it definitely won't be for Romney. Anyone who did vote for him, while being in OWS would have to have his head examined. Having this movement turn into election central is my concern, that's all.

there has been no death toll count from the bombs that destroyed 3 major cities in Libya including in the city of Sirte which was completely destroyed by bombs from the USA and NATO

It's easy to make death tolls sound low when they're not counting or the term militant is used to describe anyone killed that is of military age.

Also a bunch of death happened in 2009 and 2010 in the initial surge of troops ordered into afghanistan after Obama took office... including from Black Water and mercenary organizations that are still in use to this day. Also not all actions under private mercenary organizations fall under the FOIA

it better be the lowest. They killed a hell of a lot of people in Afghanistan from the start until about the end of 2010.

Progress in Libya? They thought they made progress after funding the Mujahideen and the Afghan Arabs in the 1980's. Is no one paying attention that Libya was a reuse of failed Reagan policies? Yeah the Soviet Union collapsed afterward but then came the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Hilary Clinton has said this herself and how those policies lead to the people we're fighting today.

You should really look into what Libya looks like today and what it used to look like specifically in Sirte and Tripoli. They're infrastructure is destroyed and civilians got injured or died.

Don't ever let anyone convince you that bombing a city full of civilians is a good deed.

Don't let anyone convince you that casualties are acceptable.

Alternate options could have been taken. Gaddafi had been talked out of wmd's and I also must point out that the same time they said Gaddafi was killing his people a dictator in another country was killing people for protesting. I don't get the biased selection. Also when you think of rebels the peaceful ones usually are not the guys with bazookas and ak 47's. They're the extremists... just like the majority of the type of guys that have bazookas and ak 47's in America.

You should also look into the mistreatment of blacks by the rebels. They force fed them Gaddafi's flag, raped their women, and slaughtered anyone who opposed them.

Maybe you never noticed the day the rebels in tripoli flew the al qaeda flag after US surface to air missile support?

i hope democracy comes about... but this could have been done differently. They target American citizens for assassination why not just take out Gaddafi? Why the massive air strikes aimed at entire cities?

So the US govt and NATO is aware of this Al queda infiltration of libyan rebels.? thats good right.?

In any event it's done! There was a quick rebellion that NATO helped and it's over. You claim the rebels we supported committed crimes/atrocities. What do you want from me? I'm against it.! The Pres? He's also against it. NATO? The're also against it.

Christ!. IT'S OVER! Syria is next. Do you support Assad.? Or the people.? What should we do? Let's hear it genious. Instead of all the republican talking point criticism of Pres Obama. Let's hear your brilliant plan?

Well if you wanna be specific the repubs called for invasion but after Pres Obama SUCCEEDED! Then they started with the same criticisms you are spewing.

So you did say you would call me a "fucking moron" if I called you a republican. I have not. I have stated correctly that you serve the republicans when you repeat their talking points of criticism against Pres Obama.

So in any event. Your name calling is expected. You have no real arguments. Only gutter schoolyard bullying tactics of THE candidate Romney.

You can't bully someone in cyber space. You now that right?

So in regards to Syria? Are you saying No bombs, No wars? Are you saying Peace talks? You really weren't clear.

Saying I serve the republicans or that I speak republican talking points is just as ignorant and the same as calling me a republican. Hence calling you a moron. It was a legitimate argument.

The only thing that decides who I support is my vote.

In regards to Syria... I'm saying the US does not need to get involved in another war. Wars are bankrupting the government and wasting tax dollars. Defense spending is already 60% of federal discretionary spending. We're still in Afghanistan and bombing several countries.

I am anti war. I say cut the military budget in 1/2. (we would still be stronger than all our adversaries combined).

I say further we must use this most powerful military in conjunction with the UN and regional organizations to fight all dictators. (last resort, after diplomacy, yada yada yada)

We don't have to call it war per say. I mean if we did then we gotta do that pesky constitutional dance thingy.

I would call it something more like a police action. We could even create some non US entity so that we could claim honestly that the USA is not at war.

Whaddaya say?. Protect the people of the world from dictators & tyranny?

Ya wit' me?

Please stop calling me names. I mean I barely got outta high school but I'm not a moron. Just someone with a different opinion. In my opinion when someone (you) attack the president/dems, they ARE serving the repubs. When someone (me) attacks Romney/Repubs they serve the repubs.

NO! I want a new system! I understand OWS anarchists are working on it. Have you heard about it? Are they there yet?. What is taking them so long.

As soon as it happens I will be glad to embrace it. I know OWS has stated that we must change the corp personhood/money equals speech problem.Do we think the dems are more likely to push a progressive solution to citizens united? Are you gonna say the parties are the same on that?

Until the new system emerges I think we better keep the right wing out of power. I don't suppose you could agree with that. huh?

I'm sorry that I'm not into that finely relative thinking. To me bombing, invasions, and all out military actions are just that, regardless of the relative destruction to property and life.

The facts are. quite simply, that if a Republican president had followed the same policies as Barack Obama, the Democratic partisans would have attacked him with a vengeance and perhaps even called for his/her impeachment. That's not ignoring the facts; that's realizing how much personal biases influence judgement.

I certainly do not blame the American President for what he is going to do; I blame him for what he has done and, in many cases, what he has not done. This isn't a revolutionary idea. Look at how much less support Obama has this time from liberals, young people, even progressives, and "radicals" (like me).

Many Americans, myself included, have had their fill of politicians' promises. The time has come for these so-called "representatives" to deliver, not mealy mouthed platitudes and almosts and relative evils, but actual bonafide results.

Well you did blame him for the invasions of Syria and Iran that will happen. So that is clearly not fair.

Now you are claiming that Bush would have been treated worse by liberals (no surprise) but that hasn't happened either. Therefore not really relevant.

And you have discarded the progress we've made (from millions killed to hundreds). I suppose if you won't accept anything but a total end of war in a couple of years you will never be satisfied. No one can do that. we must embrace the progress that will lead to the end of war.

In fact the only way to do what you want (and what I want) is exactly how Pres Obama has done it. Slowly, and definitely. The powers that be will not allow it any other way. MIC 1% plutocrats are not going to give up power that quickly and easily.

But you seem smart enough to know that. So I don't understand why you won't acknowledge the real progress, support the momentum, and agitate for more.

I must read different news reports than you do; President Obama must not have said, the US would remove no options from the table in dealing with Iran. The underlying problem, however, is not how the government of Iran behaves, but how the government of the US behaves. Iran does not have warships and armed forces in countries surrounding the United States. Syria has committed no acts of aggression against the US; hasn't even threatened the US. Why are we concerned with Syria and ready to interfere with their domestic affairs, is the US the dictator to the world?

I don't remember ever mentioning Bush in my post, so your comment on that point is nonsense.

Your "progress" is a relative based on what you believe another person of another party may or may not have done. The glaring truth is what Obama has not done. You can call his half-hearted winding down of the illegal incursion into Iraq, or the promised end of the Afghanistan fiasco, or the Libyan bombings, etc, etc, etc, progress, but I call them more of the same.

Your spin of Obama's inaction as "slowly and definitely" reminds me of Jefferson's inaction toward his slave-mistress Sally Hemings and their offspring. He only freed the children, when they reached adulthood, and never freed Sally, who was eventually emancipated by Jefferson's daughter. That was "slow and definite" progress for Jefferson, but not for Sally.

We haven't invaded any other countries like your republicans. Pres Obama in fact has resisted your republicans pressure to do so. Period. It ain't happened. Sorry.

Middle east wars are Oil wars. This president IS winding that down. He is also pushing greentech also being resisted by your repubs. Greentech implementation will remove the need for oil wars.

My progress is about how many people we are killing with our military. From millions to hundreds is real progress. I support that momentum, that direction. You ignore it because you want to serve repubs? We will end the military killings if we support this President. His momentum proves that.

That's right, I'm a right-wing zealot. You left your good judgement back with Obama's broken promises.

Almost anyone on this forum, including you, clearly knows that I'm an anarchist. Do you simply throw the Republican epithet at anyone, who has the "audacity" to argue against Obama and his inaction and ineffectiveness?

Once again, I repeat, if a Republican president had done the very same things Obama did over the past four years, most Democratic partisans would be crying for his/her head.

Who cares what would have happened if....? huh? Bush ain't President. Ok? Understand.? You don't know what woulda happened if. Why waste time pretending?. Are you serious.? That is a distraction.

Pres Obama is better than any repub. Pres Obama WILL stop all military actions.

Your an anarchist. ok Where the FUCK is the consensus on creating the new system of governance??. huh? From the ground up! Horizontally! with real direct democracy! WHERE? It's been a year! What are you waiting for? Whats the problem?

We are all waiting! You broke your promise! Oh your as bad as Bush.

As soon as you get that going I won't have to choose D&R. right? So get to work. Lazy bastard!

I have never stopped working for a better society. The first step in building a new society is educating the workers, not with the same tired, partisan propaganda, but with a real vision of the future. That begins by weaning them from the illusions of choice and freedom.

You must be fixated with Bush. I have not mentioned him. You keep wandering back and forth between Bush and Obama. If you're satisfied with Obama's performance, bravo, but I and many others aren't. Look at his fundraising numbers. He's lost much of his support, and in fact the only way Obama can win is, because Romney presents a worse alternative.

The promise of OWS is to resist. I and many others continue to resist the ineffective, innane, and wasteful efforts of partisan politics, which, so far, has delivered little more than hot air.

You seem to be an expert at prognostication, especially when the issues concern Obama. Since you're so certain he WILL stop all military actions, you must be sure he will win the election. If so, stop pushing him on the rest of us, who don't really care.

My comments defending Pres Obama are just that. Defense of inaccurate offensive commenst. I'm perfactly happy discussing the issues around creating the new govt system you claim to be working on.

I have seen no comments from you regarding the building of a new system.

NONE! You spend all your time attacking Pres Obama. Not the system! Not the Repubs! Just pres Obama. You don't spend anytime discussing a 3rd party path. You don;t discuss the new system. You just attack Pres Obama.

Your an anarchist? I disagree.

You seem just like a republican shill. Sorry.

Listen we disagree. You are anti Obama, I am anti right wing.
Your efforts are to keep Obama from re election, I want to keep repubs out of office.

I don't give a fig about Obama or Romney. My major posts have always been to educate and agitate, rarely mentioning political candidates unless they're brought to the forefront first by others. As I have already mentioned, I am working at agitating and educating, as my exchange with you proves, on the futility of the current system, which is nothing more than a capitalist front. My hope is that eventually partisans on both sides will realize their efforts are choreographed by the ruling class to make them believe in the illusion of electoral choice.

Apparently, so far, my efforts have been in vain. You still see the political world in only Democratic-Republican vision, when in fact the choices to move away from that false dichotomy have already been presented by many great thinkers: a united workers' front to wrest power from the ruling class, not by playing their game, but by introducing new rules, which allow the workers to push the current system until it cracks, and the wall between classes can be torn away stone by stone.

In your supposed "defense" of the President, you consistently omit his egregious assaults on freedom: the detention center at Guantanamo remains open; the right to writs of habeas corpus have been suspended; centralized surveillance has been increased; the killings of American citizens, without a trial, have been sanctioned.

I don't attack Obama; I attack what he has done and not done. You support Obama regardless of the issues.

Incidentally, if the election in my state looks close, I will vote and for Obama, but not because of partisan ranting and raving, only because he is the lesser evil, and will steal from the workers less openly.

You need to personally redefinie anarchism, because the system neither supports political leaders, regardless of their supposed political leanings, nor does it support any hierarchical government, which dictates to the workers.

I have never read a book like that, but Marx and Engels both wrote extensively on a communist society. During the transition period from captilalism to full communism, a democratically elected government--such as the one Marx wrote about in his speech on the Paris Commune--would administer general affairs.

Finally in the utopian future the need for hierarchical government would simply fade away.

You don't have to read all the volumes of Das Kapital. You may start with The Communist Manifesto, Engel's essay On the Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, as well as Lenin's The State and Revolution. One other tract I might suggest is Marx's The German Ideology

Piotr Kropotkin wrote quite a bit about anarcho-communism, and you may want to examine some of Mikhail Bakunin. Finally, read a few of Che's speeches about economics and politics.

Some of these I've looked at before but I'll take another look. The thing is, we've seen so many social experiments come and go, the result of published philosophy - Marxism in various forms, socialism came and went under Thatcher, Heyek and Keynes have done a couple of rounds... the version of anarchy that most seem to entertain is a rather appealing Utopian vision. But I'm not certain the book has been written, "A Perfect Anarchy." Maybe its time has arrived.

I believe that in some of the socialist experiments like the Soviet Union, Cuba, China, and others, the revolutionary leaders accepted Lenin's premise of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which he inferred from Marx's writings about the Paris Commune.

Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin, and many of the early communists believed the Paris Commune had been too easily crushed by the French government, because the workers had not been ready; had accepted the appeasement arguments of the petty bourgeousie, the liberals, and the slow building of consensus by the anarchists. After the fall of the Commune, many Communists formulated the theory that immediately after a successful revolution, a strong central authoritarian government(dictatorship of the proletariat) had to be established to enforce the transition from the previous state and to defend the communist state from capitalist reprisals.

That's basically the point at which most communist revoltutions have mired down. The bureaucracy, as Trotsky belatedly warned, becomes so entrenched, it forms a new oligarchy. The Cubans seem to be slowly evolving out of that point, and their progress may have been impeded by the American embargo. Hugo Chavez seems to be moving toward a full communist state rapidly without resorting to totalitarianism, though with some heavy handed methods. Still, he seems to enjoy the overwhelming support of Venezuelan workers.

We could probably judge countries like Cuba and Venezuela better, if the news we received about them wasn't so heavily filtered and biased.

Have you ever done the history of the Paris Commune? I ask because one of my ancestors likely attended as a Prussian officer, he later served as a Corp commander, and in fact, it was he that masterminded the invasion of France, WWI, via Belgium.

I would also like to know, to what extent is a state communism in the above incidental to circumstance? Is it incidental to the machinations or limited construct of revolutionary force or is it the goal of proletarian revolution?

By the way I disagree with the Communists and believe the ultimate destruction may have been slowed by more effective measures on the part of the Communards, like seizing government funds in the Paris banks to deprive the French government, under Adolphe Thiers, of operational cash, but maybe the Communards were lulled into believing the government was willing to peacefully resolve the issues. The most the Communards could have accomplished was to slow their own destruction by the far superior French forces, which the capitalists would have funded under any circumstances.

The Russian revolution was not initially a Bolshevik uprising, it was a general insurrection. The Communists eventually worked into power through various peaceful and not-so-peaceful struggles during the interim government: a democratic republic.

Fidel and company organized the Cuban Revolution as a Marxist-Leninist struggle, but worked with a coalition government before finally assuming full power.

None of the communist revolutions to date fit into Marx's notion of the best situation for a proletarian revolution, which he considered inevitable. Even the Paris Commune, since it was an island of extreme proletarian unrest, was far from what he envisioned.

He believed that the ultimate proletarian revolution needed a fully developed industrial country, like England or France in his day, to succeed. The ideal would be multi-national uprising that united workers of "all countries." The communist revolution he foresaw is an inevitable result of capitalism, in which the workers are subjugated, until they have no other option but to cast off their chains.

How do you yourself define proletariat? If the bourgeoisie rise to displace monarchy aren't they in essence monarchy as the now ruling aristocratic elite? And as such, are they not possessed of the extralegal privilege of aristocracy that serves to both insulate them from challenge and also empower them to deny all others?

In Germany, for example, nobility enjoyed legal privilege; even so, academia, as those responsible for aristocratic education, lived outside even this, essentially as a sovereign unto itself. The bourgeoisie eventually rose to occupy the universities; the nobility continued its demand for classical aristocratic education in the form of private tutor - academia therefore continued, until Moritz Seebeck, to enjoy both an artistic freedom and legal privilege for the purpose of promoting education as aristocratic acculturation.

The question is this: does America really have a proletariat or it just a word that appeals? There is no nobility, no lesser bourgeoisie; we are not legally denied either property or the means of production, how then a proletariat? Can we perceive a true correlation, theoretically adapt or adopt, any essence of Marxist philosophy without this true dichotomy as forces succinctly defined, very definitively opposed, in the form of bourgeoisie and proletariat?

In America, is it capitalism that is failing us or is it corporatism? Are such words interchangeable? And what of corporate imperialism? Does this in turn affect an American capitalism?

The Communist Manifesto defines proletariat and bourgeousie succinctly, but I'll try to briefly summarize. The proletariat and the bourgeousie are distinct products of the Industrial Age.

The bourgeousie originated from the burghers of the Middle Ages and from serfdom. In the feudal system property was defined as real property, which was controlled by the nobility. Even at the earliest of the feudal period, certain serfs bought their way to freedom or escaped. Aside from these two major classes, however, the merchants constituted a third, but necessary evil, which did not form a class, but out of necessity founded cities outside the fiefdoms.

The free serfs and the merchants controlled the cities. Most of the early serfs became craftsmen and formed guilds to protect their status and their trades from competitors. The guildsmen then hired apprentices, who became journeymen, who eventually, if they were fortunate became guild members. These small manufacturers traded between cities and various fiefdoms through the merchants.

Over the centuries the cities became a major part of feudal society and became more important and necessary via international trade and finally global trade.

Global trade opened new resources, new markets, and much greater demand. Enter the machines of mass production. Industry.

The problem with this equipment (the means of production), however, was only the wealthy few burghers could afford the investment, which replaced hundreds, if not thousands of, for instance, weaving looms and spinning wheels.

The transition from real property, which defined the nobility, to capital, which defined the wealthy burghers had begun. The capitalists defined property as something new, accumulation of non-real property like accumulated labor and debts and future income, even intellectual property; wealth enough to control all major means of production and trade as well as to define societal norms.

The wealthiest of burghers, the capitalists, became the bourgeousie, but they needed a constant, cheap labor commodity to run the machines. At first they hired urban rabble and escaped serfs. Industry, though, forced more and more of the old craftsmen out of business, who joined the industrial workers. These wage slaves became the proletariat.

The capitalists eventually replaced nobility, except the new wealth had nothing to do with property or location; it was transportable. To insulate themselves more effectively from the proletariat, they allowed a middle group to continue as petty merchants, artisans, managers, etc. They were defined as the petty bourgeousie. Peculiarly, because they received a benefits of the bourgeousie, they adapted many of the values and views of the ruling class, believing themselves part of that same class, though they only stayed ahead of the proletariat by the grace of the bourgeousie.

Transfer that to modern America, and all the pieces fit together, but now the middle class, because of the economic stagnation of the past three decades have sunk further and further into the working class. Eventually, the middle class will mostly disappear and the two classes will drift even further apart. The signs are already there. At a certain, when conditions for the exploited become intolerable, they will rise up to overthrow their masters.

More or less the whole process is evolutionary with periods of rapid evolution, which Kropotkin defines as revolution..

That's very well written; I'm not certain though that the model is applicable in that I don't see the American economy or class structure evolving in this form. There has never been monarchy that prohibited upward mobility or a proletariat that was helpless and hapless. I see the gap widening for primarily two reasons - the increase in relatively prosperous population density, therefore broader and greater market share, and the efficiency of investment vehicle coupled with a lack of employment opportunity for those on the lower rungs.

The US was slightly different, in that the early period was basically an agrarian, slave-holding society, which evolved slightly differently. The industrial revolution arrived in the United States much later. By that time, while the country was still basically agrarian, the north-eastern states and California, around the main coastal cities, became merchant havens.

The European proletariat has never been helpless or hapless, which the Canut Revolts, culminating in the establishment of the Paris Commune clearly demonstrated. Still different countries evolved differently. So, for example, Russia remained a feudal state right up to the revolution and the Bolshevik takeover. Many Latin American countries remain basically feudal states today. The definition doesn't require a nobility, in the sense of a titled class, but large landowners, who basically farm the land using serf labor. We call them sharecroppers. These are not the ideal societies for a lower-class uprising, mainly because they are still agrarian and do not have the economic wherewithal to make the transition fairly painlessly.

The Industrial Revolution in the United States, especially in the northern states, which became the industrial center of the country, changed the economic structure in a pattern very consistent with the European model, but of course later. American bourgeousie were sometimes called robber barons, but the workers fit the definition of the proletariat quite well. The US had its share of worker uprisings, which historically became known as violent strikes. The government in this country repeatedly worked with the ruling class to suppress worker rebellions: the Pullman Palace Car strike, the Homestead strike, the Colorado mining strike of 1914, the Matewan coal mine strike of 1920, etc. Just as in Europe, government forces from local to national were often used as company enforcement personnel to suppress the workers.

The Great Depression might have erupted into class war, especially as refugees from the Dust Bowl fled to other states, but FDR instituted some quasi-socialist programs and kept worker unrest just below the boiling point, and finally World War 2 interrupted to end the depression.

The United States experienced a post-war boom, as the Cold War artificially maintained the heightened economic cycle as well as discouraging worker unrest, mainly through anti-Communist paranoia, which worked against widespread syndicalism, and was encouraged by the ruling class.

Finally, through a combination of government machinations, the implementation of supply-side economics and other neoliberal policies, and the end of the Cold War the economy remained stable, but real wages for workers stagnated and even declined to this day. Even the middle class was hard hit, since college graduates faced increasing unemployment numbers and almost no significant gains in real wages.

The housing collapse and subsequent bank fiascos of 2007-2008, pulled the rug out from workers and the middle class. In fact they fit into the mold of the petty bourgeousie descending into the proletarian class exactly.

Proletarians, regardless of whatever industrial country, have the ability to rise above their class into the bourgeousie. A good example comes to mind: Bill Gates, but such rapid, spectacular examples are like winning the lottery. Basically, the class system is fairly rigid, regardless of the facade used to disguise it.

Capitalists tend to keep workers at or just below subsistance level, but allow a large segment, the middle class, to live above that point mainly as a buffer against the workers and to provide support in people, who view themselves as above average workers, though, the ruling class never sees them in that way.

More or less, the point is that all industrialized countries fit in various ways into the the pattern worked out by Marx and Engels. Of course variations occur, but they are simply natural parts of an evolutionary process.

Question, though: don't you think we are in danger here of over generalization respecting the US? For example, in the northeast I don't see this is as a primarily agrarian, slave holding society. True, removed from the cities, it was largely "rural" and agrarian but I don't think African slavery was all that prevalent. In fact, I don't see group slave holdings as economically feasible due to a) the short growing season, and b) need - help was needed only at harvest time. By 1810, virtually all had been voluntarily manumitted; many were manumitted at the time of the Revolution. Also, what I am observing is a gradual economic evolution - the younger children of farmers became artisans; the children of traders became ship captains and later, merchants; the children of merchants became bankers, etc. In many cases, vocational lines blend, economic logic appears rather flexible and entrepreneurial, but ultimately wealth was imported and the economy actually evolved. And I call this "village building."

Can we even define the word "class"? In Gloucester, MA, for example, mid to late 1700s, there were essentially five divisions, or constructs, as positions of status. All lines blend, though, but more - without legal privilege isn't this but a construct? Isn't it just the guy below saying, I can't do that, I can't afford that lifestyle, and I'm but a victim of cultural circumstance?
.
True, the industrial revolution brought us our robber barons, but they held sway only over those employed in cities. The rural population was largely immune and much of the US consisted of a rural population.

When the Depression hit, those in cities stood on bread lines, those in the country returned to the farm. They also fished, hunted, gathered, etc. True, there was no money, but adversity it seems compelled all to grow ever fatter.

The middle class "buffer" you perceive is actually the result of education and employment opportunity - some vocations are more highly valued, which is as it should be, and some individuals enjoy more fortune than others. Capitalists do tend to maintain labor at specific standards of living, relative to maximized profit, but I don't believe they employ a buffer - although, perhaps, an impracticable pursuit, upward mobility is available to all.

Wages only lack in the sense that housing costs, utility costs, transportation costs, etc. have ballooned. And this is not entirely the fault of the capitalist - there were many other cultural factors external to industry and capitalism that contributed to all of these. True those on top grow ever wealthier but I have wondered how much of this is attributable to the relax of anti-trust law, etc.; it seems many profit immensely from merger triage.

In other words, I think this is a great theoretical presentation, a great device, but I have to wonder if it employs far to much generality.

I suppose we can go back and forth discussing the semantics of "ruled." For our purposes we can ignore the South in early America, because it was obviously a slave society with clearly defined classes, but you brought up the northeast, specifically Massachusetts as an example of a class-less society in the late 18th century.

Undoubtedly, those insurrectionists in Massachusetts then in Pennsylvania felt exploited enough to rebel against the people that ruled them The same is true of the those in Pennsylvania several years later. American history is full of flare ups, in which armed forces were used to quell unrest by the lower class.

The semantics of ruled can be bantered from here to next week, but a small group of people generally control the masses.

Prized to a capitalist is the commodity value of the employee, which the capitalist determines by the profitability of that employee and what he/she does. Capitalists don't consider the workforce as tools, but as a true commodity subject to the laws of supply and demand. Outsourcing became popular among industrialists, because the labor commodity from foreign countries proved to be considerably more profitable than the labor commodity here.

The ruling class generally does not view the workforce as people, but rather an object. That's why it so easily dispense of thousands or millions of jobs for the sake of the bottom line.

I certainly can't deny that the model I present is over generalized. Many great thinkers have filled countless volumes presenting the theory of the political economy.

I'm not saying that they were classless, there was definite division or "caste," chief among these being either free or un-free; all else are derived from these as but social distinctions. If one was free, the sky was the limit; if one was un-free, in any of its varied forms, very little of personal worth was attainable. Only one in ten of our indentured "servants" survived to either marry or own property; typically servitude was repeatedly extended, slavery it seems is but a matter of degree and in colonial America it was entirely color blind.

Prior to the Constitution, I think active democracy was a force very relevant to governance. The insurrections you refer to occurred precisely because the people were unaccustomed to heavy-handed governance; in both cases, a militia was "raised," meaning they were put down by the people themselves.

I fail to see how any small group of people can control the masses without both extralegal privilege and militaristic might; if the people are fully armed, this seems even less likely - I get the impression this small group governs through some majority approbation.

My point is that I'm not certain the Marxist model, or a Marxist presentation, in such imbricated form can be superimposed by way of explanation - the pieces do not fit.

In reference to "commodity," you're right - useless semantics. But I blame that loss of power, as the ability to negotiate terms of employment, not on capitalism per se but on those in Congress - all governance is economic at its core - they exist to promote prosperity - if they fail, no amount of legislation, one over the other, will save them.

"... they must surrender their arms. Do you foresee such a possibility, because I honestly do not."

Supposedly the military cannot be used to counter domestic disturbances, but just a few years ago no one suspected that our rights to writs of habeas corpus, or protection from warrant-less surveillance, and even killing American citizens without a trial would soon be legal under various "anti-terrorist" laws, which the Supreme Court has, so far, upheld.

"I fail to see how any small group of people can control the masses without both extralegal privilege and militaristic might; if the people are fully armed, this seems even less likely..."

I believe the various police forces and the several branches of the American armed forces constitute enough "militaristic might" to keep most revolutionaries, from either the right or left well suppressed. One of my points in mentioning the various labor uprisings, as well as the early two rebellions, was the government does indeed possess the might to squash unrest, and historically that force has been used against the lower class and workers.

The Massachusetts tax uprising was crushed by state militia, while the Whisky Rebellion required forces from several different states.

From the various points throughout this discussion I come to exactly the opposite conclusion that you do: that the American model, especially since the dawn of the Industrial Age, which is what Marxist theory concerns, fits the model very well.

That doesn't mean we can't find areas of agreement, which we already have, only that we disagree in some areas. Still, I find it enjoyable to read well articulated opposing opinions, where neither party huffs and puffs and insists that history or the political economy have only one proper interpretation.

I think much of our history has been far too greatly generalized; on many levels it's far too superficial an examination.

Again, I must point to the word "militia" here - while there may have been a demand in the form of a quota (I don't remember) these are yet voluntary militias.

You're right, all will be labeled in the future (ALL?) as "insurrections" and successfully countered because we lack the combined force of revolution.

Although evidence may suggest otherwise, our government is not empowered in this form - Federal military force cannot be used against the people, they must surrender their arms. Do you foresee such a possibility, because I honestly do not.

Regardless of slavery, which only indicated the economic development of early America, the nation was an agrarian nation with typical agricultural class distinctions. The American cities differed even as medieval cities differed from the various fiefdoms. In both, however, though many gradations separated the two classes, they were still two basic classes the rulers and the ruled.

The Industrial Age changed the nature of the classes, but more importantly it changed the nature of property from real property to capital and, in more recent times, also included intellectual property.

One of the bases of capitalism is that those who possess the property tend to accumulate and concentrate it. Now we have less than 1% of the population that earns $250,000 per year, but even those people aren't considered "rich." No capitalist wealth starts in the multi-millions and billions of dollars, and less than .1% earn that much.

Most of the country's wealth has concentrated in a very few people. They are the bourgeousie, the capitalists, the ruling class and the exploiters.

Down at the very bottom we have tens of millions of people that live at or below the poverty level, which the federal government defines at about $22,000 per year for a family of four. About one in six Americans fit into this lowest level. The point of this isn't to break down the population by annual income, but to emphasize most Americans struggle or work hard to try and make a decent living. There are many gradations from the lowest income earners to those, for instance, who earn $200,000 per year, but almost all have one thing in common; they sell their time to the ruling class. They are the exploited in spite of what they consider themselves, because they depend on that .1% to earn their incomes.

The ruling class determines what is prized and not by the rule of profit. People are commodities. So the prized employee of today, may become the discarded employee of tomorrow with no real say in the process, simply as part of capitalist supply and demand.

Specifics of the current political-economic system are spelled out in the three volumes of Das Kapital, as well as many other writings by Marx, Engels, etc, etc.

In America I don't believe anyone has ever been "ruled" in the sense you imply, and that was my initial point; without extralegal privilege - without legally privileged aristocracy - there can be no people of no privilege. In colonial America there were but two class distinctions of any relevance whatsoever - one was either free or one was un-free. For those that were free, the sky was the limit - there was no bourgeoisie to impede their rise; there was no gentleman ruler to contain them. Those that were un-free in the form of indentured and bonded "slave" were involuntary immigrants, as such they were but tools of economy - they were not citizenry. Those that were free rose through the political ranks of community over a period of years, possessed of an unrestricted aggressive acquisitiveness, and achieved a personal economic maturity.

ALL European institutions had been discarded, all traditional European lines of distinction blurred in America - they blur to this day - and those that seek a greater communism through socialism unintentionally blur these lines ever more. Our poor in America live better than many working class people in Europe - they acquire more property and have greater security; they have also enjoyed prosperity.

The ruling class determines what is prized? Well, what is prized? Step outside, look around, converse with the people - what they prize by and large is home and family. And this is a universal Love.

It's quite true that the modern economic capitalist machine treats all, not as a commodity bought and sold, but as a tool. It utilizes them, it subsumes and consumes, stealing their best productive years, and then discards them. But this will change because we are all possessed of economic "logic." We will survive, and in a free world, succeed - there is no force short of our own willful destruction that can deny evolution's biology.

The way I see it. It would be nice if direct democracy could be implemented, but as long as it is a far off goal, it is wise to keep my options open. I'm so disappointed with our current political apparatus that i would welcome anything at this point.

I also come here because it is a good place to find information and is filled with multiple opinions. Besides who wants to go to a site where everyone agrees with you. That seems quite dangerous if you ask me.

No, i say i'm Progressive because there is a long history of that brand doing good for the average person, but just because they had balls in the past does not necessarily mean they will be the white horse of our generation. All in all, I would not be disappointed if a third party materialized and mopped the floor with the 'Quo. But history tells me it is a long shot.

I had an "owner" who handed me a book on stuff like that he acted like he was letting me in on some grand secret, it was about effective meetings or some crap like that. I will say this I find that getting the text for the class and going through it is quicker, cheaper and more fun than sitting on a hard chair all day.

Ummm sorry but the people I have talked with here? They seem to agree that at best you are a depressed defeatist and at worst a corpoRATist shill or something similar sent here to spread apathy depression and opting-out.

The impression i get from HCHC is that he put his whole heart and soul into Obama's election campaign, and when Obama let him down, he became disillusioned with the whole process. Now, no party will ever live up to his expectations so therefore he rallies for the party that does not stand a chance, ensuring his expectations will never be let down again.

The impression i get from HCHC is that he put his whole heart and soul into Obama's election campaign, and when Obama let him down, he became disillusioned with the whole process. Now, no party will ever live up to his expectations so therefore he rallies for the party that does not stand a chance, ensuring his expectations will never be let down again.
↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

Sounds like the best advice. Even if someone feels the current political system is corrupt (it is) and desires a new, ground up, horizontal, direct democracy system We cannot abandon the existing corrupt system and leave it to the TP right wing wackos.

We must engage the ballot, OCCUPY the ballot! Elect progressives!
Vote out pro 1% plutocrat conservatives.

It's the only way.

As far as who is a pro trying to get progressive OWS supporters to throw away their votes, Do you have any opinion on Odin, or Trevormnemonic,? Sometimes they sound as if they are with us, but spend much time either unfairly criticizing dems, or discouraging voting. Hc is clearly not with OWS and squarley against the 99%.

On the other hand Shooz seems to be geniune OWS supporter, I can'r recall where He/she stands on voting..

I only see the Tea Party as American citizens joining together to make a positive change. OWS what killed that, was the violence and filth left by the protesters. The Tea Party on the other hand were never violent and also picked up after their selves

TP Wants to keep healthcare from 60 million Americans. They carried weapons and used used thinly veiled threats against the President. They appear greedy and violent. They've tried to protect tax cuts for the wealthy! They want to cut services to the sick and elderly! They've exhibited racism, ant immigrant, anti gay positions.

They created a crises that resulted in the 1st credit downgrade in US history.

"positice change"? LMFAO. That stand with the 1% plutocrats. Not with regular Americans. And they do this despite NOT being in the 1% plutocrat group.

They advocate against their own class. That makes them ignorant tools working for the criminals who prey on their own families.

If you know how to find, retrieve, or return to replies, etc., I sure would like to know. I'm so used to boards that record what you post in your own personal account. So you know what you've said and when and where you said it.

Hey righties! You don't have to look up what you said cuz you get your talking points from Drudge!! We actually say, SAY, what we think, THINK!!

Just posts using user search, if you can remember what it was I think you can do a search on the words as well, I keep "master" word file of most of stuff I put up, you know for historians and such they will want to capture the early days of the revolution one day, but the tech folks have it all too so we should be covered.

Sounds like you have a personal problem - do you have a past that haunts you? Were you an asshole when you were younger - did you never grow out of that and you are still an asshole(?) - is this what eats at you that you are forced to see me as above you? Seek help - your perception of yourself is not my fault.

Ya, I'm a Republican. I have some pretty right friends over the years, they would really laugh their ass off at that.

And since Im for a strong SEC and FDA, and am against war, I guess your neolib theory is out the window too.

Placing retirement in wall st hands is like placing healthcare in the ins companies hands- bad idea. Perhaps we could just let people do as they wish- choose the gov, choose a private plan, or perhaps choose to do neither.

Glad you think you are an asshole. I've known some. They dont write poetry.

I have bad news for you. There are like a dozen people who post here and maybe five times that amount who read the posts. Nobody's "masters" care about what goes on here.

Do you really think Dr Evil is sitting behind closed door saying "We have to stop ZenDog. He's onto us". Or "Damn Shooz and his proposals! If they get out to the world our evil plans will be ruined!"

Be happy you have people here with different ideas and opinions. They make you think. Would you rather it was just all Democrats here all patting each other on the
back for being so smart? I've had to think about what I actually believe based on what I read here, and I've changed some of my options because of it. It's good for you.

oh no, not the only one, I put up a list a while back it caused a heck of a ruckus, or at least a huge tech attack of all kinds of posters happened at around the same time, sometimes they help me think of a new way to help them show their asses, so finding usefulness in all things....

thanks for the response - not sure what you mean by soap opera - please explain - is there someone else I can speak to about this. as you know I don't think this is how things should be done here at ows- I am not tot concerned with my points really but the principle is important. thanks again for responding

You are not very nice. People criticizing Obama is in no way devious. I assume that is what you are talking about. And as you know I have NOT insulted you. You are very difficult to deal with so if you want to dish it out you should learn to take it! You might also learn to answer questions if you are supposed to help manage this site.

you know what - I think you believe your own bullshit - the worst kind of fool. now that is not an insult - just a question really. then an assertion. clearly I do not know what you mean by referring to the soap opera - I assumed you meant the criticism of the dems and Obama. so now you can spell it out or just keep the "soap opera" going. I can guess what you will do. if I have insulted you it can only mean that you are extremely sensitive. you are not at all easy to get along with and I can prove it - our pm exchange was a mess - because of you. all I asked (very politely) was an explanation for why my wife was banned (still no answer!! - why is that mr moderator?) and what you need from me to try to make this site better. your response was the usual - this exchange is just more of the same. here is EXACTLY what I mean and by the way - why did I have to ask you 5 times before I got an answer -
[-] 5 points by flip (5207) 20 hours ago

hey, do you mind answering my question about why my points are frozen! who did this and why - and why don't you have the decency to answer the question?

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink

[-] -1 points by shooz (26287) 20 hours ago

I have no idea. Other than the fact that someone besides me banned you and you are still able to post. So that could be it.

Were you involved in the soap opera cabal?

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 4 points by flip (5207) 19 hours ago

thanks for the response - not sure what you mean by soap opera - please explain - is there someone else I can speak to about this. as you know I don't think this is how things should be done here at ows- I am not tot concerned with my points really but the principle is important. thanks again for responding

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink

[-] -3 points by shooz (26287) 17 hours ago

thanks for not insulting me.......................:)

I don't for as much as a single second, believe you are that naive, as to NOT know exactly what I mean by the soap opera.

A cabal of truly devious posters, that was quite the subject around here for a long enough time that you couldn't possibly have missed it.

hey - how about the banning of my wife - why ? can you answer that mr moderator? no - didn't think so - how many times now - and for no reason - like most of your moves! how about a it of transparency here at ows! isn't that one of your beloved democratic party ideals? as I said very sensitive - especially when the bullshit gets called. classic! you spend too much time on forums - get out - make friends. as to your list I told you from the beginning - not interested. I respond to my interests not yours. I also respond to people who can think and have something to say. your childishness about bots and gish gallop (while evidence of too much time on forums) is just that childishness. you seem incapable of having any real conversation except with sycophants and quislings like the dog boy and - oh I am sure there is one more - no? goodbye - things were better when I ignored you - I want things to be better

Right, because when you speak about the 99% and addressing corruption on wall st, it was never meant to include anyone on the right, right?

What is this, dig up a bunch of stuff that you didnt understand 2 years ago and clearly dont now?

(clumping registered Republicans in with the big money party founders is a tried and true trick on both sides of the corrupted isle, you sound like Beck)

Did you kick out right wingers that showed up to the 1000+ people rallies? Its obviously a leftist movement, but there was always an understanding of all were welcome.

And while you can keep denying things, yes, there were some Tea Party members that came in support for the first month or two before the media smear campaign kicked off.

David Cobb, one of the founders of Move to Amend, will tell you to your face that he has done his presentation at Tea people events and that a lot of them support it. Admittedly, not the 100% approval like at Occupy, but still a significant portion.

So yes, there is broad support for what we are doing. Despite the media and their toadies (ahhhemmm) best intentions of smearing the entire thing and making it look like a bunch of bumbling Dems.